The linked article
in The Economist (http://www.economist.com/node/21557801)
justifies that when it comes to discounting, the general public are bad at
math. The mathematical principal
involved is this: discounting takes a percentage off of a large number, but
giving a buy-on-get-one, gift with purchase or an upgrade involves percentages compared
to a lower number. The latter results in a larger more appealing percentage.
Here is a chart assuming that you’re using a half-carat ring
worth $3,000 as a benchmark, but offering a larger more valuable ring at the
same $3,000 price.
New Ring Value
|
Increase in Value
|
Discount to $3K
|
$4,000
|
33%
|
25%
|
$4,500
|
50%
|
33%
|
$5,000
|
66%
|
40%
|
$6,000
|
100%
|
50%
|
The third column assumes that you’re taking the more
valuable ring and discounting it to achieve a $3,000 price. Notice how much larger the numbers are in the
second column than the third?
If you’re running a promotion where you offer a $5,000 2/3ct
solitaire for the price of a $3,000 1/2ct solitaire, you could use three
different numbers. You could boast a 33%
larger diamond for the same price, 40% discount or 66% more value. The Economist article would suggest that
you’ll get the best response by using the largest number.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.